Forget the House - Assault Weapons Ban Lacks Needed Votes to Pass in U.S. Senate

[Ban Hammer 13,333]

IMO the panic is also largely being driven by first time buyers. I was on gunbroker today and one guy (clearly new) paid 1,000k for 5,000 rounds of .22LR Federal. Retail that goes for maybe 150-200USD and I don't think anyone who buys .22 regularly would even think of paying that.

clearly a noob.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

There are no anti-gun lawmakers. That is a paranoid characterization right there. Which shows that you cannot have a meaningful debate with irrational, paranoid people. It's impossible. That's what I just said.

By reasonable debate , you mean give in to your viewpoint. By reasonable you mean banning weapons that account for less than 1% of gun crime. Yes reasonable indeed.

Banning Assault weapons would be like discovering Porsche drivers account for less than 1% of DUI's , but banning Porches because.. Well what does anyone really need with a sports car like that right ?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

By reasonable debate , you mean give in to your viewpoint. By reasonable you mean banning weapons that account for less than 1% of gun crime. Yes reasonable indeed.

Not at all. I've said it about a million times: ** the window dressing that is sold under the assault weapons ban label. Just make sure guns can't be acquired w/o standard background checks in this country and make sure that gun owners are held 100% accountable for any and all damages that their guns cause. That should solve most of the gun violence problems right there.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Not at all. I've said it about a million times: ** the window dressing that is sold under the assault weapons ban label. Just make sure guns can't be acquired w/o standard background checks in this country and make sure that gun owners are held 100% accountable for any and all damages that their guns cause. That should solve most of the gun violence problems right there.

Ok so know your just for universal background checks and punishment for straw buyers and no bans.. Good. glad you came around

[Pooky 3,781]

Not at all. I've said it about a million times: ** the window dressing that is sold under the assault weapons ban label. Just make sure guns can't be acquired w/o standard background checks in this country and make sure that gun owners are held 100% accountable for any and all damages that their guns cause. That should solve most of the gun violence problems right there.

Let us know when you decide to rejoin the real world.

Those registering their firearms are the least likely to commit crime. I am fine with better, more comprehensive background checks. However, most criminals will obtain their weapons by other means and, with the quantity and variety of guns already in circulation, the gun crime rate will go nowhere in my lifetime or yours.

The knee-jerk legislation, such as the 7-shot magazine capacity in NY, will only take away a legal owner's options, both to purchase many different types of gun, including many automatic pistols, and to use them in self-defence. Criminals, on the other hand, are unlikely to be so constrained. This kind of rushed, ill-considered legislation only hurts those legal gun-owners who end up having to use their firearms in defence of themselves, their family, or their home.

And events like Sandy Hook and Columbine will still happen, because guns are not the root cause. People are.

I am not a supporter of the NRA. I'm from a country where it is basically illegal for the general public to own firearms. The police patrol without firearms. And as a country, the UK has a lower firearm fatality rate than Vermont. With almost 100 x the population. I don't like guns.

However, I fully realise that American culture includes the gun far more than the UK ever did. Americans will never relinquish their guns. All that the current slew of proposals, regulations and legislation will do is panic the general public into buying more guns and the politicians into passing more laws. And all of this still misses the root cause of mass killings, like Columbine and Sandy Hook.

And that is the people, not the guns.

[Karee 4,190]

Let us know when you decide to rejoin the real world.

Those registering their firearms are the least likely to commit crime. I am fine with better, more comprehensive background checks. However, most criminals will obtain their weapons by other means and, with the quantity and variety of guns already in circulation, the gun crime rate will go nowhere in my lifetime or yours.

The knee-jerk legislation, such as the 7-shot magazine capacity in NY, will only take away a legal owner's options, both to purchase many different types of gun, including many automatic pistols, and to use them in self-defence. Criminals, on the other hand, are unlikely to be so constrained. This kind of rushed, ill-considered legislation only hurts those legal gun-owners who end up having to use their firearms in defence of themselves, their family, or their home.

And events like Sandy Hook and Columbine will still happen, because guns are not the root cause. People are.

I am not a supporter of the NRA. I'm from a country where it is basically illegal for the general public to own firearms. The police patrol without firearms. And as a country, the UK has a lower firearm fatality rate than Vermont. With almost 100 x the population. I don't like guns.

However, I fully realise that American culture includes the gun far more than the UK ever did. Americans will never relinquish their guns. All that the current slew of proposals, regulations and legislation will do is panic the general public into buying more guns and the politicians into passing more laws. And all of this still misses the root cause of mass killings, like Columbine and Sandy Hook.

And that is the people, not the guns.

+1000

Post above is exactly right.

BTW you misspelled defense and realize.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I do not even consider the Senate an issue. With only 1/3 of Senators being elected every 2 years, the impact of proposals such as this is minimal on political careers. On the other hand, Senators are elected "at large" and senators from Illinois, for example, cannot ignore half the population of the state that does not live in the Chicago area.

There is enough arm twisting available to get some version to pass the Senate, not even an issue to consider. Passing the Senate WOULD get it to the floor in the House, and that is probably about the only way. The House will quickly add an amendment to the Senate's bill for National Reciprocity on concealed carry, Grandfather existing weapons and magazines, apply a sunset provision...and the people that voted for it in the Senate will kill it. The primary elections will be coming and Republicans will say they killed the bill and Democrats will say THEY "supported gunowners rights" by voting against the version that would have expanded gunowner rights. Next year, 95% of incumbents will be re-elected, like usual, and THAT is the name of the tune. The Soviet Union legislature had a higher turnover of elected officials than our congress.

Business as usual in Washington DC.

Gun sales will be up 40%, NRA membership up 30%, 2 million NEW firearms owners in the US, and we have Obama to thank for it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Ok so know your just for universal background checks and punishment for straw buyers and no bans.. Good. glad you came around.

I know it's a bit too complex for you but if there's a proposal to ban or even just to reduce or eliminate the supply of weapons that have no legitimate use in civilian hands, I'll be supporting it. Not a priority item for me but it's a worthy cause all the same. Sorry but there really is no coming around on my part. That's the position I've held all along.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Let us know when you decide to rejoin the real world.

Those registering their firearms are the least likely to commit crime. I am fine with better, more comprehensive background checks. However, most criminals will obtain their weapons by other means and, with the quantity and variety of guns already in circulation, the gun crime rate will go nowhere in my lifetime or yours.

Oh, I live in the real world. All the weapons out there in hands that they do not belong into were all legally purchased at some point and then ended up where they shouldn't because those able to legally buy guns all too easily get to sell them off to people that aren't. Criminals get guns not by stealing them but by purchasing them in the secondary markets from people that bought them in the primary markets. That is why registering guns and holding their registered owners accountable and responsible for any damages done with them so important. And that is why anyone selling a firearm to another person w/o that other person having passed a background check ought to be sent up the river and lose their right to ever own a firearm again. Simple, common sense actions and we will see gun crime rates decline in our lifetimes.

[himher 634]

Someone steals a gun. Uses it for a crime.

Dumba$$ liberal solution to gun violence: Hold the owner of the gun, who was honest enough to legally purchase it and pass a background check accountable for what the criminal did

Yeah. Great idea.

Not at all. I've said it about a million times: ** the window dressing that is sold under the assault weapons ban label. Just make sure guns can't be acquired w/o standard background checks in this country and make sure that gun owners are held 100% accountable for any and all damages that their guns cause. That should solve most of the gun violence problems right there.

[Ban Hammer 13,333]

Oh, I live in the real world. All the weapons out there in hands that they do not belong into were all legally purchased at some point and then ended up where they shouldn't because those able to legally buy guns all too easily get to sell them off to people that aren't.

not true.

parts guns and war trophies.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I know it's a bit too complex for you but if there's a proposal to ban or even just to reduce or eliminate the supply of weapons that have no legitimate use in civilian hands, I'll be supporting it. Not a priority item for me but it's a worthy cause all the same. Sorry but there really is no coming around on my part. That's the position I've held all along.

Ok so you do support an assault weapons ban. OK Got it

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I know it's a bit too complex for you but if there's a proposal to ban or even just to reduce or eliminate the supply of weapons that have no legitimate use in civilian hands, I'll be supporting it. Not a priority item for me but it's a worthy cause all the same. Sorry but there really is no coming around on my part. That's the position I've held all along.

I will rejoice in your disappointment, just as I have so far.

You are with the group of people that want to privatize Social Security, end Medicare, criminalize abortion...it just ain't happenin'. Not because of your rhetoric (or lack thereof) or facts, or lies, or newspaper editorials but simply because the votes of politicians needed to implement it are not there. I have said that many times and it is the reason I am simply not going to participate in gun control bukkake arguments. It is a non-issue. Do not put too much faith in the bold talk of someone that never has to be elected again and had no bold talk before he had to be elected. It is a phoney as a $3 bill. Obama does not vote for legislation anymore. Biden will only do so if there is a tie in the Senate. The two people with the megaphone have no say in the matter.

Politicians value their jobs more than anything, and there are only 535 of them and the NRA only has to be a factor for 318 people. This fact is not lost on them and the NRA is powerful enough in most districts to threaten their jobs if they vote for new firearms laws. You don't have to like it, but this issue makes the NRA stronger.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Someone steals a gun. Uses it for a crime.

That happens from time to time but it's not how guns used in crimes are typically acquired.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

... the NRA is powerful enough in most districts to threaten their jobs if they vote for new firearms laws.

In 2012, the NRA lost almost all their causes that they poured any significant resources in. They poured millions of dollars into races and couldn't move the needle. Their return on investment was below 1% - that means that more than 99% of the money they spent to influence elections was simply pizzed out the window. They're not even remotely as powerful as you want to make believe here.